What is a good patient reported outcome after total hip replacement?

OBJECTIVES There is an increasing movement to collect and report patient reported outcome measures (PROM's) following total hip replacement (THR). In the UK, the procedure specific PROM of choice is the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). It is currently unclear how to use this information to determine outcome following surgery. The aim of this study was to define a threshold for the OHS that is correlated with patient satisfaction. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING A district general hospital (St. Helier Hospital, Carshalton, UK). PARTICIPANTS 799 patients receiving THR from 1995 to 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES At 12 and 24 months after surgery patients were asked if they were satisfied with surgery and completed the OHS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to identify thresholds of follow-up OHS, which best discriminated patient satisfaction. Analyses were stratified by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), baseline OHS and patient expectations. RESULTS 91.9% of patients were satisfied with THR at 12 months (92.8% at 24 months). Using the ROC technique, the OHS at 12 months associated with patient satisfaction was 38 and at 24 months 33. The OHS at 24 months associated with satisfaction was higher in those with highest tertile of baseline OHS (30, 33, 43 respectively), and lowest tertile of BMI. CONCLUSIONS We have identified a value of the OHS that predicts patient satisfaction 12-24 months following THR within a standard clinical setting. However, this threshold is markedly influenced by pre-operative OHS and should be stratified accordingly.

[1]  R. Hays,et al.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Nan Cochran,et al.  Help and hope at the bottom of the pile , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  I. Arostegui,et al.  Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. , 2005, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[4]  A J Price,et al.  Temporal trends in hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom: 1991 to 2006. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  W. Harper,et al.  Outcome of Charnley total hip replacement across a single health region in England. The results at ten years from a regional arthroplasty register. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  D W Murray,et al.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[7]  Ruth Thorlby,et al.  High Quality Care For All , 2008 .

[8]  B. Wroblewski Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  T. Kvien,et al.  Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? , 2007, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[10]  S. Hajat,et al.  Mortality, morbidity, and 1-year outcomes of primary elective total hip arthroplasty. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  R. Chang,et al.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip. , 1997, JAMA.

[12]  M. Freeman,et al.  Overall long-term impact of total hip and knee joint replacement surgery on patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. , 1994, British journal of rheumatology.

[13]  B. McCarthy,et al.  Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. , 1996, Health services research.

[14]  E. Roos,et al.  Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study , 2003, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[15]  I. Arostegui,et al.  Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. , 2005, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[16]  W N Roberts,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. , 1986, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  R. Field,et al.  The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[18]  R. Buchbinder,et al.  Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery , 2008, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[19]  J O Galante,et al.  Total hip replacement. , 1971, International surgery.

[20]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[21]  P J Gregg,et al.  Outcome of Charnley total hip replacement across a single health region in England: the results at five years from a regional hip register. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.